Justification for estrogen and matriarchy?

[Sand Castle]

What are the psychological effects of estrogen and testosterone? I believe, for testosterone, it is aggressiveness and competitiveness. As you should know, both sexes produce estrogen and testosterone. It’s obvious which one produces more of which.

Anyway, if estrogen does what I think it does, then this is justification for matriarchy, but not in the classical sense. A woman with certain testosterone levels and a man with average or above average testosterone levels is unfit to run a country (if estrogen does what I think it does).

Think about it. What do all of the nastiest, meanest people in history have in common? They’re all males! It’s highly possible that all the murderous women of history had higher testosterone levels than the average female.

Now, what I think estrogen does psychologically is make people feel things more deeply. It makes them care about others more than the overly masculine* male or female would care. So this new form of matriarchy is based on rule by the most qualified and feminine females. However, this new system is only compatible with a socialist society. Because of the kindness of the said matriarchs, communism would be achieved as a side-effect.

*note that masculinity, if I may use this word, is not always shown in a person’s physical characteristics.

I could be wrong. I know very little about hormones. I'm a male btw (I know someone will ask). I'm just asking questions and opening a debate. I'm not trying to hate on the males here.

[Sand Castle]

Oops, I screwed up the thread title. It should be called, "Justification for matriarchy by estrogen?"

[piet11111]

i bet you subscribe to the T-poisoning bullshit.

if you search the forums for T-poisoning i am sure you will find more then enough people debunking your assumption.
or await jazzratt im sure he will be very tolerant :lol:

[Sand Castle]

i bet you subscribe to the T-poisoning bullshit.

if you search the forums for T-poisoning i am sure you will find more then enough people debunking your assumption.
or await jazzratt im sure he will be very tolerant :lol:
Well, I did admit that I know very little about hormones and could be wrong.

[Sand Castle]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1010271&postcount=31
I wanted science and I found it. That ends this thread.

[STI]

Anyway, if estrogen does what I think it does, then this is justification for matriarchy, but not in the classical sense. A woman with certain testosterone levels and a man with average or above average testosterone levels is unfit to run a country (if estrogen does what I think it does).

Think about it. What do all of the nastiest, meanest people in history have in common? They’re all males! It’s highly possible that all the murderous women of history had higher testosterone levels than the average female.

In order for your supporting evidence to have any validity, you'd have to demonstrate that the "nastiest, meanest people in history" (those in charge of anything, at least) have significantly higher tstostrone levels than their sex's average... which might be tough, because most of them are dead.

If I'm remembering right, testostrone is correlated with increased aggression. Competitiveness, I'm not so sure, and I can't recall any mention whatsoever of estrogen as it relates to personality.

Anyhow, the effect of testostrone holds across sexes, so a woman with higher-than-average testostrone can be more aggressive than most men, even though her actual testostrone levels are lower. And remember, most of the data thusfar gathered on hormone-personality interaction has been correlational, so knowing a person's relative testostrone level can help you guess at what their relative aggressiveness will be, but your guesses are all but guaranteed to be wrong on more than one occaision.

As for males' greater tendency toward aggression than females', there are a few competing theories as to why this is the case, most notably that men are socialized to be more aggressive, to respect aggressive role models, and to use aggression more often than females vs. alternative problem-solving methods.

So the jury is still out, and we can't yet say conclusively just what testostrone's relationship is to aggression, and what we can do about it.

[jake williams]

There might be slight inclinations, but I don't think what you're proposing holds too much weight, partly for reasons mentioned. The idea that "The worst people in history were men!" is bullshit because one could have as easily said that the most beatific, most radical, most intelligent, strongest, most artistic people in history have mostly been males - because for thousands of years women haven't done much. If women had been equally represented in the leadership of history their sheet'd be a whole lot worse.

[piet11111]

one could have as easily said that the most beatific, most radical, most intelligent, strongest, most artistic people in history have mostly been males - because for thousands of years women haven't done much.

you mean that women haven't been allowed to do much like getting an education or having a job for thousands of years.


If women had been equally represented in the leadership of history their sheet'd be a whole lot worse.

what evidence do you have to support that claim ?

[jake williams]

you mean that women haven't been allowed to do much like getting an education or having a job for thousands of years.
More or less. The point is that "But what about Hitler and Genghis Khan and all the other monsters?" is not an indictment of men per se, because virtually all the political leaders at the time were men, good or bad - not to mention almost all the everything else.


what evidence do you have to support that claim ?
Well it's a big what-if. For a whole lot of reasons I take the assumption that men and women are more or less the same and most of the supposed differences between them are falsified. Also, like I said, obviously women have been underrepresented in most of society and men have been overrepresented. So it would make as much sense to look at cruel male leaders and say "Men are really bad!" as it would to look at the fact that most scientists, say, have been men, and deduce "Men are really intelligent and innovative!"

Conversely, I don't think much of people who say things to the effect of "If only women were running the world..." because "so few women have started wars" - so few women have revolutionized physics, maybe Marie Curie, with her husband? Does this mean women are stupid, or lack the proper insight and analytical ability? No. And nor do Hitler and Genghis Khan and if the zeitgeist insists, George Bush (I don't like singling him out as particularly demonic), suggest that men are particularly vicious.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In this thread, we know nothing about hormones.

Hint: Boadicea had her troops burn down St Albans and kill 70,000-80,000 people. Women are perfectly capable of committing murder and atrocities as men.

[piet11111]

jammoe you did not say women would do just as badly as men you said they would do worse and that is something that i want to investigate a bit ;)

[More Fire for the People]

Well the idea does seem like you pulled out of your ass... which is close the vagina... which connects to the ovaries... so... I see your reasoning.

[jake williams]

you said they would do worse
Where did I suggest that all? If I gave that impression then you read me wrong, or I explained myself wrong.

[piet11111]

Where did I suggest that all? If I gave that impression then you read me wrong, or I explained myself wrong.


If women had been equally represented in the leadership of history their sheet'd be a whole lot worse.

equally represented yet a whole lot worse.

[RevMARKSman]

equally represented yet a whole lot worse.

I think he meant "a whole lot worse than it is now" not "a whole lot worse than men."

[jake williams]

I think he meant "a whole lot worse than it is now" not "a whole lot worse than men."
Yes.